Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My last sentence meant one thing - the existence of Jesus is a debatable topic, nothing more.
It is?
I'm not aware of anyone that disputes that the man existed.
The rest of the fairy tale related to that existence is certainly disputable (or debatable I suppose)...
and especially the more absolute and specific the assertions get...
WIld Style - yes true. I don't claim to be a religious authority. Someone with more knowlege will have to respond. Good topic by the way. Might be more fitting in the religious forum, but then again those topics can get too passionate there.
I think, this forum would be best, no? We are not talking about the nature of Jesus (son of God or a man) or christian doctrine. We are discussing the historic nature of the Figure known as Jesus. It can be tied back into the main topic because if he didn't exist, ever or if he did exist, just not at the time of the Romans, that means he couldn't have been a citizen of the Roman Empire.
So if you don't like Gospels, you can just blow them off. Inconvenient to your narrative. That's probably why I'm wasting my time talking to you.
I'm taking the historical approach. Roman citizens had no rights to trials. Jesus was not a Roman citizen.
Put it together.
The gospels are not reliable historical documents and must be approached with skepticism. Suppose that 2000 years from now, the only surviving historical records of Charles Manson's life were a few biographies written by some of his most fanatical followers. Do you think the folks in that future would have an accurate idea of who and what Charles Manson was? Do you think "Charlie" by Squeaky Fromme would be an unassailable and accurate account of that life?
Well...that is precisely the situation we have with Jesus...the only detailed accounts are those which were written by fanatic followers, and those didn't begin to get written until three decades after the supposed execution.
So..if you are offended because of your religious beliefs, go to one of the religious forums and complain. Here, unless you have some historical facts with which to counter whatever information is being presented, you aren't in the proper venue.
We are discussing the historic nature of the Figure known as Jesus.
It can be tied back into the main topic because if he didn't exist, ever or if he did exist,
just not at the time of the Romans, that means he couldn't have been a citizen of the Roman Empire.
As you're (sort of) also back on the OP's topic...
Did anyone else native to the area and of similar social circumstances, qualify as a Roman citizen?
As has already been pretty well settled... I also think not.
Most Jews were probably not Roman citizens, so no, Jesus was almost certainly not a Roman citizen. Paul (Saul's) citizenship is presented as being a unique circumstance in the Bible.
On the subject of Roman citizenship; no, Jesus would not have been a Roman citizen. Citizenship was deeply tied to the stratification in Roman society and was dependent upon your family, where you lived, etc. There were various forms of citizenship during the time period in question, from 100 BC to 100 AD. It is quite complex to get into, but let's just say that you were either a Roman citizen of any level for which there were various terms and rights associated or you were a Provinciales or you were a slave. That system lasted until the 200's AD when all persons in the Empire were made full citizens.
Jesus would have been a Provinciales and would have enjoyed only the rights known as jus gentium. Jus gentium itself was the Roman codification of what then comprised common international legal concepts as pioneered by the Greek City States. This gave people some basic rights and governed the relationship between nations.
Under this system Jesus would have been beholden to the laws of Judea that were still crafted by the Jewish government (High Priests of the Temple). Pilate as governor would have overseen all affairs for Roman citizens in Judea and overseen the administration of the province while day-to-day and cultural dealings would have been handled by the local governments according to their own customs. So, you have a situation with two governments. As a Provinciales you are beholden to your local laws and ultimately paid homage to Rome as a subject. As a Roman citizen you only had to answer to Roman law.
Getting into the Biblical end of it, Jesus could not have been a Roman citizen as if he was that would mean he couldn't be the Messiah as prophesied. The Messiah must be from the line of David and Israeli Kings. So, the fact he wasn't a Roman citizen, just a Roman subject is foundational to him being the Messiah. As far as the trial goes, the Jewish leaders could have done whatever they wanted with him under their own laws, but they were not allowed to execute criminals, that is a right reserved solely to the Romans. Since Jesus had violated no Roman laws they came up with the "inciting rebellion" line (which made it a Roman issue) in order to kick it up to Pilate and have him put Jesus to death. Had Jesus been a Roman citizen, the Jewish High Priests could not have done anything to him, he would have been under the sole discretion of Pilate.
So, not saying the story is real or not and that Jesus existed or not, it at least follows a believable course in terms of how the legal proceedings went and Jesus' status in the Empire.
Most Jews were probably not Roman citizens, so no, Jesus was almost certainly not a Roman citizen. Paul (Saul's) citizenship is presented as being a unique circumstance in the Bible.
Paul's citizenship was based on his families apparent somewhat elevated status in the Bible. His father was a Pharisee which would denote that he was a person of some influence, if even minor. His mother is also mentioned to be in Rome. Tarsus, the city Paul is from, was a major cultural center and Roman colony with many Romans living there, so it would not be suprising if he was a citizen of some level.
At that time there were three basic levels of Roman citizenship:
Cives Romani - Full Roman citizens.
Latini - Freedmen slaves, Cives Romani convicted of crimes or Romans settling in the colonies held this status.
Socii - People of Roman client states who were granted Latini level rights in exchange for military service. This does not mean you had to serve in the military to be a Socii, just that your territory was part of the levy system for troops.
From 91-88 BC the "Social War" was fought over the lower levels of rights afforded to the Latini and Socii versus the Cives Romani. At the conclusion of the war, Latini and Socii ceased to exist and all people of these classes became Cives Romani.
In the case of Paul his father would have most likely been a Latini as he was described as a "freed man citizen". However, if we are to take as literal the timeline of the Bible, Paul would have actually been a Cives Romani, or full citizen of Rome. This would have been an unusual situation for a Jew, but not exactly uncommon for those with "pedigree".
Most Jews were probably not Roman citizens, so no, Jesus was almost certainly not a Roman citizen. Paul (Saul's) citizenship is presented as being a unique circumstance in the Bible.
Unusual, probably. Not unique. See the following from Acts 16. where Paul and Silas have been roughly handled and imprisoned at Philippi.
36And the keeper of the prison told this saying to Paul, The magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace. 37But Paul said unto them, They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust us out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. 38And the serjeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans. 39And they came and besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city.
Note the plural. Evidently Silas was also a Roman citizen. This is, of course, some thirty years after the crucifixion. There is no evidence of any of Jesus' original followers being Roman, and certainly none that He Himself was. The son of an obscure Jewish carpenter would be most unlikely to be one.
Nor, of course, would Pilate have sent Jesus to Herod Antipas (Luke 23:6-7). The Tetrarch of Galilee would have had no jurisdiction over a Roman citizen, wherever born.
As so many other "facts" were invented...
and still others are mis-translated or interpreted.
That an "audience" with Pilate became a "hearing" which became a "trial"...
is the far more likely reality.
hth
You are correct that far too many potential variables cloud the record and the subsequent interpretations.
If you read Josephus you learn that the annual Passover Feast in Jerusalem was a yearly ordeal for the Romans because that was the time of the year when hosts of religious fanatics, messiah claimants and other anti-Roman factions all converged on the city. The Passover which did not feature a number of violent incidents, was the exception rather than the rule, and every few years or so, there would be a full scale riot with pitched battles between the soldiers and celebrants.
As a consequence, the Roman legions which were stationed in Caesaria were moved to Jerusalem to keep order during the Passover Feast. They would be accompanied by their commander, but that the Roman Prelate himself would be willing to leave the cooler climate of Caesaria to spend his time presiding over what the Romans viewed as religious madness....????
Perhaps Jesus had some sort of hearing before the commander of the Legion. If so, the commander would likely to have been interested in only one thing..."Is this the guy who has been going around stirring up the crowds with religious preaching? Yes? Okay, death sentence."
The Romans administered Judea through the Sanhedrin. If someone was threatening the authority of the Sanhedrin, the Romans would have seen this as a threat to their authority. Once Jesus was brought to the Romans by the Sanhedrin and identified by them as being anti-local authority, that would have been all that was required for the Romans to agree to an execution because the Romans had no actual interest in internal religious disutes among the Jews, only in keeping order.
If the person brought by the Sanhedrin happened to be a Roman citizen, then it would have been different because the accused would have had certain rights under Roman law, including the right to a trial.
So....I highly suspect that the entire trial described in the gospels, was a long after the fact invention of the writers in an attempt to elevate the status of Jesus.
Or....another possibility is that Jesus did indeed receive such a trial because contrary to the gospel portrayal of him as being of humble origins, Jesus was actually from an important family and grew up among wealth. This scenario has been advanced by several biblical scholars and the evidence employed was fairly reasonable, if not utterly conclusive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
